Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017

Discuss anything that happened in recent games. This is the place to post any words you got that beat Dictionary Corner, or numbers games that evaded Rachel.

Moderator: James Robinson

Post Reply
User avatar
Mark Kudlowski
Enthusiast
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:15 pm

Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017

Post by Mark Kudlowski »

3rd (?) numbers, target 474

(100 + (4 x 10) + (9 x 2)) x 3
Peter Mabey
Kiloposter
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:15 pm
Location: Harlow

Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017

Post by Peter Mabey »

Last numbers: (75-7)x50x9/(10x10) = 306
Ray Wilding
Devotee
Posts: 564
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017

Post by Ray Wilding »

ACTOREENS in whichever round it was.
User avatar
Johnny Canuck
Kiloposter
Posts: 1647
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
Location: Montréal 😃, Québec 😕, Canada 😃

Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017

Post by Johnny Canuck »

Apparently, today's challenger (Peter Sheridan) is notable enough to make it onto Wikipedia.
I'm not dead yet. In a rut right now because of stress from work. I'll be back later in S89. I also plan to bring back the Mastergram - if I can find a way to run a timer or clock through pure MediaWiki without having to upload to Vimeo every time.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13214
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Peter Mabey wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 1:59 pm Last numbers: (75-7)x50x9/(10x10) = 306
Nice method. I did it a different way (outside the time) - (75+10+10-50)*7-9 = 306.
Philip Wilson
Devotee
Posts: 642
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 6:41 pm

Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017

Post by Philip Wilson »

In one of the rounds I saw defamity. Not being sure it's a word I checked on the site I think we use, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/ - and it defaulted to defamer. It didn't say 'no exact match' though, which I usually see! So was I right or wrong?
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13214
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Philip Wilson wrote: Wed May 31, 2017 9:16 pm In one of the rounds I saw defamity. Not being sure it's a word I checked on the site I think we use, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/ - and it defaulted to defamer. It didn't say 'no exact match' though, which I usually see! So was I right or wrong?
It's not valid on Apterous but that's not necessarily 100% in line with how they adjudicate on the show.
Philip Wilson
Devotee
Posts: 642
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 6:41 pm

Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017

Post by Philip Wilson »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Wed May 31, 2017 11:16 pm
Philip Wilson wrote: Wed May 31, 2017 9:16 pm In one of the rounds I saw defamity. Not being sure it's a word I checked on the site I think we use, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/ - and it defaulted to defamer. It didn't say 'no exact match' though, which I usually see! So was I right or wrong?
It's not valid on Apterous but that's not necessarily 100% in line with how they adjudicate on the show.
I can't see it in any of the example sentences linked to 'defame' so I'll conclude it's not a word then. So why not just say 'no exact match'?
David Williams
Kiloposter
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017

Post by David Williams »

In a similar vein, I saw CORRALED a few days ago. If you look it up, it takes you to CORRAL, exactly the same as if you look up CORRALLED. The old print dictionary specifies CORRALLED, and the Introduction to the ODE says that if nothing is specified in the entry for the word, the correct version would just add -ED. All the examples online have CORRALLED as the spelling. Not exactly definitive unless there's something else I haven't found.
Philip Wilson
Devotee
Posts: 642
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 6:41 pm

Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017

Post by Philip Wilson »

David Williams wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2017 1:09 pm In a similar vein, I saw CORRALED a few days ago. If you look it up, it takes you to CORRAL, exactly the same as if you look up CORRALLED. The old print dictionary specifies CORRALLED, and the Introduction to the ODE says that if nothing is specified in the entry for the word, the correct version would just add -ED. All the examples online have CORRALLED as the spelling. Not exactly definitive unless there's something else I haven't found.
So you're saying in situations like this the word is valid, right?
David Williams
Kiloposter
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017

Post by David Williams »

Philip Wilson wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2017 10:20 am
David Williams wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2017 1:09 pm In a similar vein, I saw CORRALED a few days ago. If you look it up, it takes you to CORRAL, exactly the same as if you look up CORRALLED. The old print dictionary specifies CORRALLED, and the Introduction to the ODE says that if nothing is specified in the entry for the word, the correct version would just add -ED. All the examples online have CORRALLED as the spelling. Not exactly definitive unless there's something else I haven't found.
So you're saying in situations like this the word is valid, right?
CORRALED (and many similar words) certainly wasn't valid in the print dictionary. I don't know of any reason why this would change. I just can't see where it tells you now what is and isn't valid when it comes to inflexions. The only thing that differentiates is that CORRALLED is the way it's spelt in the examples.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13214
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017

Post by Gavin Chipper »

I don't think the free version of the dictionary gives any inflections nowadays.
Ciaran McCarthy
Rookie
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 10:44 am
Location: Kempston, Bedford
Contact:

Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017

Post by Ciaran McCarthy »

How about CAROTENES for 9???
User avatar
Johnny Canuck
Kiloposter
Posts: 1647
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
Location: Montréal 😃, Québec 😕, Canada 😃

Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017

Post by Johnny Canuck »

Ciaran McCarthy wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:22 pm How about CAROTENES for 9???
Sorry, no banana -- CAROTENE is explicitly listed as a mass noun.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/carotene
I'm not dead yet. In a rut right now because of stress from work. I'll be back later in S89. I also plan to bring back the Mastergram - if I can find a way to run a timer or clock through pure MediaWiki without having to upload to Vimeo every time.
User avatar
Thomas Carey
Kiloposter
Posts: 1478
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:17 pm
Location: North-West of Bradford
Contact:

Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017

Post by Thomas Carey »

actoreens isn't it
cheers maus
Post Reply